In This Edition - #13

LET'S BLAME BUSH!
HOW LONG WILL THE BALLOT BOX WORK? 
DON’T NEED?
MAKING AMERICANS MORE ACCOUNTABLE
NO ROBBERY?
BILL AND HILLARY SINK TO NEW LOWS IN NATIONWIDE POLLS. 






LET'S BLAME BUSH!

The economy has seen better days. So let's blame Bush!

That's the mantra you're hearing from the Democratic Party. Yesterday, Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt once again accused George W. Bush of scaring consumers and investors so badly that the economy--buoyed these many years by strong Clinton administration policies--has soured and thousands of Americans have lost their jobs.

Bull.

Signs of an economic slowdown began to emerge as far back as a year ago. The decline in the NASDAQ stock index began in March 2000, and estimates of the country's gross domestic product were revised downward last summer. Henry Aaron, senior fellow in economics at the Brookings Institute, said Bush's statements that tax cuts were needed to boost the economy were "not likely to have been a major factor in the fluctuation of stock prices or any downturn we've been experiencing."

Still, the Democrats will grab onto anything they think will sway public opinion their way. 

They see the poll numbers in favor of Bush's tax cut plan. They know what kind of political advantage a successful tax cut will give Bush and the Republicans. And they see Americans wanting more control over their money. They're not about to let that control--and their political momentum--slip out of their hands without a fight.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-2001316225029.htm







HOW LONG WILL THE BALLOT BOX WORK? 

Oh nuts, does he have to talk about this again today?
Probably not, but I’m just dropping it in the hopper anyway. I truly think that this is one 
of the major issues facing America today.
We know that government education doesn’t work. There are fixes, though. Charter schools, private schools, parental responsibility, home schooling, vouchers.
We know that there are environmental problems. There, too, we have fixes. Cleaner burning engines, consumer education, alternate sources of energy – nuclear, for instance.

But just what is our fix when the ballot box doesn’t work anymore? And by ballot boxes not working, I’m not talking about addle-brained wizened citizens in Florida who can handle 35 bingo cards at once but who can’t figure out a butterfly ballot, or who have the strength to send that little disk ripping down the shuffleboard court, but can’t manage to punch their way through a thin sheet of paper.

When I speak of the ballot box not working, I speaking of the inability of those who pay 
the bills, who cover the cost of government, to bring enough votes to the table on election 
day to make a difference – a difference in either how much of their property is going to be seized by the government, or how it is going to be spent.

Isn’t it becoming clear, now, that there was a very good reason for the progressive income tax to be one of the key planks of the Communist Manifesto? You do know that the progressive income tax was introduced into this country at about the same time communism was sweeping into power in Russia, don’t you?

Sure, it took a lot longer than expected for the desired effect to materialize, but we’re 
almost there. We are near the point, now, where the politicians have a guaranteed lock on continued political power. They can take all of the money they want from people – the high income earners – who’s votes they don’t need and use that money to buy the undying loyalty, support --- and votes --- from the rest of the population.

Every single year that passes the tax burden rests more heavily on the high-income earners; while those in middle and low income levels see their federal tax liability disappear all together. Now that the shift is almost complete the Social Democratic Party is turning to a new goal … shifting the entire cost of Social Security and Medicare onto high-income Americans. This is why the Democrat class warlords are screaming that their core constituents, middle and lower income Americans, need relief from “payroll taxes.” Give them their way, as the Republicans most assuredly will at some time, and future campaigns will feature Democrats warning voters that “The Republicans want you to pay for your own Social Security and Medicare.” That’s an argument that’s guaranteed to succeed at the polls.







DON’T NEED?

Sorry … something to add here.

A little quote from Class Warlord Tom Daschle. He says that the White House – that would be George W. Bush – is responsible for the downturn in the economy. It’s all because George Bush is “talking down” our economy. Daschle says “They’re doing it for the short-term political gain of passing a tax cut we can’t afford and don’t need.”

Don’t need?

Isn’t that just fantastic? Tom Daschle now knows whether or not you need to keep more of the money you earn. He has looked into your checking accounts and your savings accounts. He’s reviewed your credit card bills. He knows how much you owe the doctor for your child’s health care. He knows whether or not your car needs repair and if you’ve able to afford your winter heating b ills. Daschle knows all!

Isn't it just wonderful, folks? Our government leaders have become so wise and all-knowing that they can even tell us how much of our own money --- the money we work for and earn --- we "need."









MAKING AMERICANS MORE ACCOUNTABLE

Friday before last, the Senate passed a measure that would make it tougher for individuals to declare financial bankruptcy. The House has already passed a similar measure, and President Bush has indicated he will sign the legislation.

What does the Bankruptcy Reform Bill do? It prevents debtors from shielding their assets from creditors by declaring bankruptcy. Instead of allowing people to file bankruptcy under Chapter 7, which allows most debts to be erased, many more people will have to file under Chapter 13, which requires some repayment of debts under court supervision. Chapter 7 will be reserved for those with incomes below their state's median income level.

The bottom line is that individuals with debts won't be able to shed them as quickly as 
they'd hoped. Who's for the bill? Republicans and George Bush, as well as the financial service industry. Credit card companies lost $38 billion in unpaid debt last year as a result of bankruptcy filings. Banks and credit card companies combined have funneled $31 million in political contributions to both parties--but mostly to the Republicans.
Aligned against the bill are some Democrats who say the law would stick it to working 
families and people who fell into debt because of "unforeseen factors." Senator Paul 
Wellstone (a.k.a. Paul Welfare) said, "The big guys are going to win and the little people are going to get smashed...[The bill] is a wish list for the credit card industry and a 
nightmare for vulnerable families and vulnerable citizens." And Larry Nobel of the Center for Responsive Politics, said, "[The credit industry] saw an avenue to get
it and they bought and paid for it. Interestingly, they didn't buy it on credit--they paid 
cash up front for it in terms of campaign contributions. "Get it? It's "the little people" and "working families" against the big, bad financial services industry. Citizens are "vulnerable" to the predations of big business without the protection of their benevolent federal government. And remember, the Democrats are all about relieving you of your individual responsibility. And that includes freeing you from debts you shouldn't have run up in the first place. Having said all of that --- we also need to slam the credit card companies for sending out high-limit credit cards to anyone with a pulse. They know that there are going to be huge losses --- and guess who covers that. You, that's who. Why do you think your credit card chalks up interest at 18 percent per year?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/DailyNews/Bankruptcy_bill010315.html






NO ROBBERY?

In Iowa, robbery isn't really robbery if you don't make threats or touch your victim.
That's the message the Iowa Court of Appeals sent Wednesday when it ruled in the case of a May 1999 incident at a Davenport convenience store. An unarmed man entered the store wearing a paper bag over his head and athletic socks on his hands. He quietly asked for money from the cashier, ordered the cashier to lie on the floor, and left.
Police arrested James Edward Heard soon after the robbery. He was convicted of 
second-degree robbery and appealed. The Court of Appeals noted that the robbery did not fit the state's legal definition of robbery, which requires physical contact, a threatening gesture, or at least "nonverbal physical movement." So the court reversed Heard's robbery conviction.

So the message to crooks in Iowa is that you can rob as many stores as you want--as long as you don't make any threats or physical contact with your victim.

What a dangerous precedent--and what judicial stupidity. Unless Heard's conviction is 
upheld on appeal, look for robberies in the state of Iowa to jump.

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4788993/14088286.html









BILL AND HILLARY SINK TO NEW LOWS IN NATIONWIDE POLLS. 

Senator Hillary Clinton's image across the country is at a new low in the wake of 
Pardongate. Most Americans now have a negative view of the ex-first lady, according to a new national poll. Fifty-one percent of Americans now have an unfavorable view of Hillary, and only 39% view her positively, this according to a Fox News Opinion Dynamics survey. 

The junior senator from New York had a much better image on January 12th, just before she and her co-president Clinton left the White House amid controversy over pardons and gift-grabbing. At that point, she had a rating of 52% positive, 38% negative. 

The poll also suggests that New York City is really out of whack with the rest of the 
country regarding Bill Clinton. When Americans across the fruited plain were asked if they'd vote for Bill Clinton as mayor, 65% said they wouldn't, and only 30% said they would. This while other surveys continue to find that William Jefferson Blythe Clinton would win if he ran for General Dinkins' old job in the Big Apple. 

Don't believe that Clinton can still draw speakers' fees in the tens of thousands of 
dollars. When's the last domestic speech he gave that earned him any money? He's had to go across the Atlantic Ocean to make speeches recently. In fact, I think this whole Pardongate is causing him much more trouble on the income-producing front than anybody is alluding to. 

That Morgan Stanley situation is far worse than anybody's telling you about in the wake of Bubba's speech. We've had people lose their jobs at Morgan Stanley, because they were somehow tied to the decision to bring the first elected president ever impeached and held in contempt of court in to speak. These firings are happening because some really heavy hitters have pulled their accounts out of the company to protest the speech. 

You haven't heard much about this, but there was an allusion to some speech that Clinton did take less than his rate card demands. His chief of staff said that the opportunity was so great, and the need for getting a certain message out so paramount, that the president 
decided to knock a few bucks off of his fee in order to realize the opportunity. 

Excuse me, but that just means he can't get the rate card price. In fact, few along Pennsylvania Avenue are willing to pay even $6 to be seen with the impeached ex-president. Street vendors in Washington who snap photos of tourists posing with life-sized presidential cardboard images near the White House have removed Der Schlick Meister's likeness from view and replaced it with those of Laura Bush, the new first lady, and of course George W. Bush, the new president. 

The vendors cited a drop in sales resulting from what they discerned as public distaste with Mr. Clinton's controversy-plagued administration and subsequent questions over the pardons he issued to cocaine dealers, traitors and guys who sold oil to apartheid South Africa and the Ayatollah's Iran. 

So he doesn't even get six bucks for people wanting to pose with a cardboard cutout of him, and Mrs. Clinton has dismal poll numbers - numbers, by the way, that were tallied before we learned of how much her office space in New York cost. The New York Post reports that she spends $514,000 for her new office, a figure that puts her at the top of all other senators. Dianne Feinstein comes in a distant second, spending $424,000 for her offices in San Francisco. 

When that news comes out, what will Hillary's approval or disapproval numbers look like in her adopted home state? One would think they'd plummet even further, but you can't say that for sure. These are New Yorkers we're talking about. They just may be proud of Hillary for her high-class digs. 


 

Neil Boortz is a syndicated talk show host based in Atlanta Georgia. You can visit his website at http://www.boortz.com.